Public Opinion - Discovery - Power Independence

Home

Not logged in - Login | Register

Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Public Opinion

Moderated by: Joe Kelley

New Topic

Printer Friendly

Public Opinion

Rate Topic

Author	Post

Posted: Fri May 12th, 2006 01:24 pm

Quote

1^st Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

Joined:	Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location:	California USA
Posts:	6399
Status:	Offline
Mana:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff74.html

I read all that and find it wanting. What "it" wants, perhaps, is some history on the subject of Public Opinion - the prince formerly known as Common Law.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

My perusal of the above site, with all those words jumbled together into something resembling order, has so far been eye opening, to say the least, from my individual perspective, a coming of age perhaps, new discoveries even, and having not finished the chore of reading that site, yet, the relevant quotes that follow may not be the most relevant quotes available in response to the subject of Public Opinion a.k.a. Common Law.

For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.

It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

I really did try to cut out as much superfluous bullshit as possible in my chore to cut and paste relevant stuff. The sound bite is huge none-the-less.

I can try to summarize:

Despots wield power.

One power can oppose despotic power.

Let the winner prevail.

What is that opposing power standing in the way of absolute despotic power?

"Trial by the Country"

The trial continues to this day.

Who is winning?

Has 'the country' lost its power?

Has 'the country' lost its capacity to identify the one and only thing that stands in the way of absolute despotism?

What is this stuff called "Common Law"?

It may be suggested that "Common Law" is the current results of the trial currently being conducted by 'the country'.

Common Law was once a principle based upon equity.

Like this:

Hume says:

“The government of the Germans, and that of all the northern nations, who established themselves on the ruins of Rome, was always extremely free; and those fierce people, accustomed to independence and inured to arms, were more guided by persuasion, than authority, in the submission which they paid to their princes. The military despotism, which had taken place in the Roman empire, and which, previously to the irruption of those conquerors, had sunk the genius of men, and destroyed every noble principle of science and virtue, was unable to resist the vigorous efforts of a free people, and Europe, as from a new epoch, rekindled her ancient spirit, and shook off the base servitude to arbitrary will and authority under which she had so long labored. The free constitutions then established, however impaired by the encroachments of succeeding princes, still preserve an air of independence and legal administration, which distinguished the European nations; and if that part of the globe maintain sentiments [*53] of liberty, honor, equity, and valor, superior to the rest of mankind, it owes these advantages chiefly to the seeds implanted by those generous barbarians.

And I am guilty of grinding my personal axe, as everyone may do from time to time, that being the case of equity as a means to a desired end.

Equity was once a common word with a common meaning as a result of people practicing common sense. Once upon a time; a public appraisal of equity became a popular fad. Public Opinion concerning equity, at that time, was, perhaps, something good; worthy of high public esteem.

Equity was once being, at least in part, a parcel to the law of the land; at that time.

Who is winning now?

Quote

Posted: Fri May 12th, 2006 01:55 pm

Quote

2^nd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

Joined:	Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location:	California USA
Posts:	6399
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Practical application of lessons to be learned:

Suppose that one is to endeavor to be, for a moment in time and space, a member of the public that constitutes Public Opinion.

One might conclude, right or wrong, that a powerful Despot lives and breaths, exercising absolute power, on this earth, hear and now, among the rest of the current busy exchanges of equity between free individuals who make up the rest of mankind.

One might not be so disposed to get that far into the nitty gritty.

One might simply say:

The Shit is about to hit the fan.

One might, for example, look at this and conclude that the Shit is coming from an identifiable orifice:

One might then express their Opinon here:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage&JServSessionIdr009=5eoqftsq43.app1b

Let's Make It a Million!
717654 :
the number of people who have already voted
in the referendum to Impeach Bush!
(figure updated daily)
One would not be alone. One would not be 'the majority'. One would be one.

Would one then be opening Pandora ’s Box, unleashing the devil incarnate, to the ruin of mankind forever and always?

Perhaps - risks are involved for every individual predisposed to act in any manner they determine to be right or wrong according to their own special interest – one at a time in time and space while one remains alive in a particularly dangerous world.

Then one might feel somewhat less powerless and even, dare I say, less subdued within one’s own conscience. Freedom from guilt is perhaps a costly affair.

Possibly; one might not stop at that one gesture of Opinion. One might be forever engulfed with the elixir of power; having dared to wield this very dangerous stuff. One might set their sights on the next preposterous claimant to the throne of absolute dictator.

Or not. People may just go about their own business. Public Opinion is rather fickle.

Quote

Posted: Fri May 12th, 2006 02:02 pm

Quote

3^rd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

Joined:	Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location:	California USA
Posts:	6399
Status:	Offline
Mana:

http://www.votersforpeace.us/signUp.jsp?key=1134

Public Opinion rears its ugly head!

"Oh the humanity"

Note: I hit the submit button on that link to find "Page not found". I did this act knowing that I may have already hit that submit button once upon a time already. Perhaps the effort is wasted. I'm inclined to think: It's the thought that counts.

Last edited on Fri May 12th, 2006 02:07 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Fri May 12th, 2006 02:14 pm

Quote

4^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

Joined:	Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location:	California USA
Posts:	6399
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Update:

VotersForPeace is sending you this email to confirm that you have signed our VotersPledge.

Tens of millions of Americans agree with you and are a powerful enough political force to end the Iraq occupation. But, to make the anti-war movement effective we need millions of Americans to sign the Voters Pledge. Please visit our tell-a-friend page to spread the word.

Also, other groups, like NION and War Resisters League, have advocated pledges of conscience that are worthwhile individual approaches and we encourage you to explore these links. There is great power that you as a voter have, however, when uniting with other voters in working against elective wars, like the occupation of Iraq.

If my vote was counted twice, then, my effort is inaccurate. I need to be more accurate when expressing myself. This web page documents my expressions in a more accurate way. One must count upon oneself?

Quote

Posted: Sat May 13th, 2006 08:46 am

Quote

5^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

Joined:	Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location:	California USA
Posts:	6399
Status:	Offline
Mana:

http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/

Martin Jacques notes that Washington appears to have missed the fact that China is not simply being a reluctant partner in pressuring Iran, it is actively resisting the U.S. agenda. That, says Jacques, is because China's booming economy has allowed it greater freedom of expression on the world stage, compared with its habit, even in the recent path, to studiously avoid upsetting Washington. (Guardian, May 10, 2006)

The shaping of Public Opinion goes on. Each individual making up the total "Public" includes every individual. The stuff flowing between individuals can be accurate or not. One might wonder why that stuff is ever inaccurate on purpose.

I look for any reference, in the power struggle, mentioning China.

If I see reports suggesting that China is the new bad guy on the block, the current bogey man, the greatest threat to democracy, the most wanted terrorist, etc., then, that “News” will indicate something very significant; to me.

If any reader is currently exchanging anything with China, then, please consider posting here on this forum.

For example:
I have this program:

http://www.skype.com/helloagain.html

Skype. The whole world can talk for free
A person in China contacted me awhile ago and we exchanged typed words in our chat windows. It was, in my opinion, a very productive exchange of mutual interest leading toward peace and prosperity; despite my inability to speak any Chinese.

It is amazing what can be accomplished once borders allow free welcome and voluntary exchanges of mutual value.

Another example might be someone who is currently playing on-line multiplayer games with anyone living in China. More of that will certainly reduce any future tension between people living in China and people living in the U.S. or anywhere for that matter.

If anyone claims to be responsible for severing free and welcome communication channels, then, they are obviously claiming to be the cause of tension.

For example:

Claiming to sever free and welcome communication channels because one claims that those channels are 'trading with the enemy' is falsifying communication which is, in fact, a severing of free and welcome communication channels.

Ask:

Do I want to be lied to and how much am I willing to give up while maintaining the flow of lies?

Quote

Current time is 09:50 am
Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Public Opinion	Top